When I get down to the coal face of the orchards, fields and glasshouses that make up the UK’s horticulture industry, I must confess to having a great deal of sympathy with growers when the conversation turns to the certification systems with which they have to comply.

These have moved far beyond the simple benchmarking system launched at the Royal Show in the 1990s - mainly at the instigation of the high street retailers and supported by major producers, as well as the National Farmers’ Union (NFU).

Since then, the web of complexity has grown, particularly because every individual retailer has applied its own definitions and requirements, resulting in many different strands - even if these all lead back to the same starting point.

So is it simply a case of growers now having to serve too many masters? If this is so, with all the additional costs incurred, I am not surprised that the situation last week brought the British Independent Fruit Growers’ Association (BIFGA) to its feet with a call for an independent inquiry.

The result may do very little to get supermarkets to change their standards, which have become embedded as part of their normal contractual criteria with their suppliers. But a closer look, as envisaged by BIFGA, based on a common-sense approach backed by an element of goodwill concerning the reality of modern fresh produce marketing requirements, may bring an opportunity to achieve a greater level of rationalisation at a time when every sector is looking at its costs.

In the year when Charles Darwin has been given more than his fair share of primetime TV airspace and column inches, the message is that adaptation is the key to success on the path of progress.

There has, however, been a query from the NFU - reported in last week’s FPJ - as to why the Assured Produce scheme is benchmarked against GlobalGAP.

One of the main reasons that an international move towards harmonisation was widely supported originally was because membership would establish and strengthen the need to establish international common standards. To all the multiples backing EurepGAP - as it was originally titled - this made sense and laid down a foundation that made it easier and, in some cases, ensured quality and food safety.

UK growers welcomed the concept as a direct benefit, as competing imported fruit and vegetables would have to meet the same disciplines and it would help create that time-worn phrase, a “level playing field“.

With many producers now also fulfilling an international role by acting as category suppliers and bearing a far wider responsibility, the value of GlobalGAP has far from diminished.

There is also no doubt that there will be several other elements that will affect production and trade coming over the horizon - in all probability generated by bureaucrats in Brussels - for which the current framework, if simplified, could be invaluable.